A cyclist who raised a complaint with Kent Police after the force decided not to proceed against a van driver who cut across him at a junction has said he is “hugely disappointed” in their response which he believes sends the wrong message to vulnerable road users.
Kent Police contacted road.cc reader Adrian after we published details of the incident, including his video, on Tuesday.
In a statement sent to road.cc, the force said: “Kent Police received a report of an incident involving a cyclist and a van near Goodnestone, Canterbury on 16 June 2022. The report was reviewed and a decision was made that it would not be proportionate for any further action.
“The force endeavours to investigate proportionately and to take action where appropriate to do so. Decisions are based on the evidence available as well as the nature and severity of the potential offence. In instances when an allegation of this nature is not pursued the informant will not be contacted.
“We apologise for any confusion which may have arisen around the response to this particular incident and officers have since spoken to the informant to resolve the issue.”
Adrian told us: “I’m hugely disappointed that Kent Police have dismissed this incident despite clear video evidence of what I consider to be at best careless driving and at worst, dangerous driving.
“The van driver has attempted to overtake me going into a junction, close passing me within inches. If that doesn't constitute an offence, I don't know what does.
“The problem is the message this sends out to vulnerable road users,” he continued.
“The police should be doing everything they can to protect cyclists and pedestrians from the minority of drivers who see someone on a bike and have to get past them, regardless of the dangers.
“We need the police to protect us all, and uphold safety for everyone on our roads, if we're going to encourage more people to travel actively.”
Below is the text of our story as published on Tuesday.
Kent Police weren't interested in this Near Miss of the Day submission, according to the rider involved — who says he's not even had an acknowledgement of the complaint.
road.cc has contacted the force to see if there's a mystery excuse, but reader Adrian hasn't heard anything back about this incident with the driver of a van one month on.
Adrian called the driving on display "appalling" and recalled the incident to us — and Kent Police in his complaint — which happened at the junction of Whitstable Road and Head Hill, near Goodnestone, at around 5.30pm on June 16.
"The van driver saw me indicate left and attempted to overtake me going into the junction," he said.
"Fortunately, I am an experienced cyclist and was able to avoid a collision, although the vehicle passed me by a matter of a few inches.
"Despite assurances that any road traffic reports would be addressed within five days, a month has now passed and I have heard nothing. I can only assume this is because Kent Police has little regard for cyclists' safety."
The rider has made a formal complaint about the way the case has been handled "or more accurately, not handled by Kent Police".
"Specifically, I would like to know on what grounds, given I have provided video evidence of the incident, did the force decide not to investigate?"
Over the years road.cc has reported on literally hundreds of close passes and near misses involving badly driven vehicles from every corner of the country – so many, in fact, that we’ve decided to turn the phenomenon into a regular feature on the site. One day hopefully we will run out of close passes and near misses to report on, but until that happy day arrives, Near Miss of the Day will keep rolling on.
If you’ve caught on camera a close encounter of the uncomfortable kind with another road user that you’d like to share with the wider cycling community please send it to us at info [at] road.cc or send us a message via the road.cc Facebook page.
If the video is on YouTube, please send us a link, if not we can add any footage you supply to our YouTube channel as an unlisted video (so it won't show up on searches).
Please also let us know whether you contacted the police and if so what their reaction was, as well as the reaction of the vehicle operator if it was a bus, lorry or van with company markings etc.
We’ve noticed you’re using an ad blocker. If you like road.cc, but you don’t like ads, please consider subscribing to the site to support us directly. As a subscriber you can read road.cc ad-free, from as little as £1.99.
If you don’t want to subscribe, please turn your ad blocker off. The revenue from adverts helps to fund our site.
If you’ve enjoyed this article, then please consider subscribing to road.cc from as little as £1.99. Our mission is to bring you all the news that’s relevant to you as a cyclist, independent reviews, impartial buying advice and more. Your subscription will help us to do more.
Dan is the road.cc news editor and joined in 2020 having previously written about nearly every other sport under the sun for the Express, and the weird and wonderful world of non-league football for The Non-League Paper. Dan has been at road.cc for four years and mainly writes news and tech articles as well as the occasional feature. He has hopefully kept you entertained on the live blog too.
Never fast enough to take things on the bike too seriously, when he's not working you'll find him exploring the south of England by two wheels at a leisurely weekend pace, or enjoying his favourite Scottish roads when visiting family. Sometimes he'll even load up the bags and ride up the whole way, he's a bit strange like that.
Since 360° cameras are transforming the field of view of two back to back camera to achieve the 360° field, in the knowledge of that field of view, there must be some error at the extremes. The side view must be that extreme for front/rear camera orientation.
I wonder how many 360° camera prototypes are tested for distortion of the image?
Obviously any quantity camera lens is expected not to distort the image...
Presumably that becomes a mandatory requirement for evidence gathering. I don't recall any mention of that within any action camera specifications.
Most cam footage is a bit lop-sided, shaky and or blurry, but it suffices to show that a close pass has happened and identify the number plate. As long as you can get a couple of decent selections of footage from the 360 cams, then I don't see that a bit of distortion at the edges is going to matter. It'd be more important for camera stills, but with video it's much easier to spot.
"The force endeavours to investigate proportionately and to take action where appropriate to do so. Decisions are based on the evidence available as well as the nature and severity of the potential offence."
Adrian told us: “I’m hugely disappointed that Kent Police have dismissed this incident despite clear video evidence of what I consider to be at best careless driving and at worst, dangerous driving."
So Kent Police don't see evidence of a close pass due to the spacial distortion of the field of view.
Adrian believes that he provided "clear video evidence".
So quality of evidence is what they disagree on. Adrian has the real world experience to recognise the close pass, but Kent Police only have the evidence that doesn't appear to show a close pass due to spacial distortion that is a potential feature of 360° cameras.
hawkinspeter wrote:
If you cast an eye over the various NMOTD videos, I doubt that there's any of those where distortion would call the evidence into doubt.
The quantity of those videos using a 360° camera is very small so that it is not a general problem. However as 360° cameras become more common it will be another reason for No Further Action, unless purchasers have the information to differentiate between the cameras on offer, and their spacial distortion of the field of view.
Like much innovation, new is not better until it is at least as capable as what came before, especially fit for purpose: evidence. Spacial distortion is not acceptable to the police.
Add new comment
31 comments
"The force endeavours to investigate proportionately and to take action where appropriate to do so. Decisions are based on the evidence available as well as the nature and severity of the potential offence."
Adrian told us: “I’m hugely disappointed that Kent Police have dismissed this incident despite clear video evidence of what I consider to be at best careless driving and at worst, dangerous driving."
So Kent Police don't see evidence of a close pass due to the spacial distortion of the field of view.
Adrian believes that he provided "clear video evidence".
So quality of evidence is what they disagree on. Adrian has the real world experience to recognise the close pass, but Kent Police only have the evidence that doesn't appear to show a close pass due to spacial distortion that is a potential feature of 360° cameras.
The quantity of those videos using a 360° camera is very small so that it is not a general problem. However as 360° cameras become more common it will be another reason for No Further Action, unless purchasers have the information to differentiate between the cameras on offer, and their spacial distortion of the field of view.
Like much innovation, new is not better until it is at least as capable as what came before, especially fit for purpose: evidence. Spacial distortion is not acceptable to the police.
Pages